“Moral authority comes from following universal and timeless principles, like honesty, integrity, treating people with respect.” – Stephen Covey

            Decades ago when I became the guardian of an elderly relative who had accumulated  over a long lifetime a considerable amount of real estate and a large portfolio of stocks, I was surprised, if not shocked, to discover that most of her business dealings had been conducted solely on the basis of either a handshake with her farm manager or a telephone call to her broker. At first I questioned the safety, not to mention the validity, of transactions that involved large sums of money on the basis only of spoken (i.e., unwritten) words. Although my relative was feeble and no longer able to manage financial affairs to her satisfaction, she explained, as best she could, that she had tried her whole life to associate, work with, and hire people distinguished by the trait of “good moral character.”  

Yes, before engaging in long-term business relationships my relative did her homework, talking with references or relying on the recommendations of trustworthy friends before choosing with whom to transact business. Yes, she had been “burned” a few times early on, but over the years she had become astute in ascertaining whether someone was saying what they meant and meaning what they said. Yes, of course she could afford a high-priced attorney to draw up complicated legal contracts but generally chose not to do so. In fact, when I contacted her trusted Harvard-trained attorney of many years, he was more than willing to prepare any document I wished. I also discovered that he charged me $600/hour just for chatting with him and that he calculated charges based on 15-minute increments. If I spoke to him for 16 minutes, I was charged for a full 30 minutes ($300).

In the intervening years, as our family businesses have expanded, I have thought long and hard about the importance of good moral character in creating or fostering trust in business and, more recently, in politics. In business, even though jointly held assets (I was recently amazed to discover) now place my family in the top 1% of all the people in the United States (it takes less than one might suppose), I have found the same satisfaction that my relative found in knowing that if I ask my broker to purchase 100 shares or 1000 shares of a certain stock, he will execute my request faithfully and precisely. He trusts me, based on years of experience, that I have the funds to complete the purchase, and I trust him to do exactly as I have requested. Likewise if I tell one of my farm managers that I will give him 3/4 of a crop if he doesn’t charge me for fertilizer but only 2/3 of a crop if he expects me to pay for fertilizer, he knows that I mean what I say and I trust that he will divide the crop accordingly.

Let me be clear: I am not arguing against the value of putting things in writing or involving lawyers, especially when business deals are complicated or the parties don’t have a long-term relationship. In most cases where large sums of money are involved, it is clearly best practice in most cases that things be spelled out in writing. Rest assured that I avail myself of attorneys for many transactions. But I also have forged relationships over time that allow me to call the president of a bank, request a loan to purchase a tract of real estate, and have the money transferred in a matter of days. When he gets around to sending me a promissary note, the banker knows that I will sign it. (N.B. He is the bank’s president, and he and his family own the bank.) What I am longing for, however idealistically, is a society that consistently looks for, recognizes, extols, prizes, embraces, and rewards good moral character in business and politcs. Honesty and trustworthiness should form the bedrock of our society, not the exception, and we should not be ashamed to state that publicly and repeatedly and then follow through and act accordingly.

A friend asks, “What does the attribute of ‘good moral character’ mean in relation to politics?” Interestingly, that phrase is identical to the one used by the United States Citizen and Immigration Services to determine who qualifies to become an American citizen.  Immigration law primarily defines good moral character in terms of absence – what a person has not done. Listed among the things that would disqualify an immigrant for citizenship are these acts: murder, an aggravated felony, or a Federal crime, which includes money laundering, crimes against the government, offenses that jeopardized national security, offenses that involved fraud or deceit in which ithe victims’ aggregate losses exceeded $10,000, tax evasion involving a loss greater than $10,000 to the government, perjury, subornation of perjury, witness tampering, and giving false testimony under oath or providing false information in documents. Should it be proven that an applicant for U.S. citizenship engaged in or was convicted of any of these offenses, they consitute grounds for denying citizenship. Is it too much to expect that federally elected officials be held to the same standard as an immigrant applying for citizenship?

For me, good moral character in public life, as in private conduct, is much more than the absence of criminal acts. It is the presence of qualities such as honesty and truthfulness that are balanced with ethical behavior and consistent choices to do what is morally right. I am not so naïve as to think that the “moral choice” cannot at times be challenging to discern or make. For example, I believe that as a general rule (say in 99.9% of cases) we should not lie. But I also believe that in rare circumstances there can be a moral justification, even a moral imperative, for not telling the truth. If I were a German citizen in World War II and my Jewish neighbor knocked on my door and asked me to hide his child from Nazi stormtroopers and I was able to do so, I would not reveal to the Nazis that I was hiding a Jewish child in my closet. The far greater good of saving a child’s life would trump (forgive my use of that word) telling the truth – which is that I was intentionally breaking an unjust and immoral law that condemned Jews to work camps and almost certain death.

I am hardly the first to speak out for good moral character, but I feel that in recent years this attribute has fallen victim or prey to the cult of personality. We emulate or exalt actors or performers, sports stars or politicians because we are enamored of their charisma or talent, well-crafted words or sex appeal but choose to ignore their vulgarities, rudeness, or lack of moral character. With our actions and money, if not our words, we are saying, “He may be a dope addict and a pedophile, but boy can he dance.” “He may be guilty of sexual assault, but he throws or shoots that ball incredibly well.” We vote for politicians because of their purported policies and cast a blind eye on their lies, hypocritical acts, and callous mistreatment of others. With our votes, if not our words, we are saying, “He may be an egotistical narcissist, an adulterer, a pathological liar, a tax evader, a racist and a white supremacist, but he will appoint judges who think like me.” Heaven help us! As Ana Navarro has argued, “There is a minimum requirement of morality, of moral compass, of decency, of moral empathy. And if you are incapable of meeting that minimum requirement, you can’t even talk to me about policy.”

What would happen if we were to place good moral character above all other attributes, including fanatical loyalty to a sports team or political party, policy, or ideology, when we do business, fund activities, or vote?  I believe it would lead to a healthier and more robust society. But is good moral character even possible to achieve on a large scale? In religious terms, can Zion exist today? My answer is that good moral character and moral choices are made one at a time by individuals acting alone and in concert with like-minded individuals. To that end, I close by sharing a handful of favorite quotes on how to bring good moral character back into our daily transactions and election choices:

How to do it: “Moral excellence comes about as a result of habit. We become just by doing just acts, temperate by doing temperate acts, brave by doing brave acts.” – Aristotle. In other words we start with ourselves, making sure that our choices are moral.

Why do it: “He who is void of virtuous attachments in private life is, or very soon will be, void of all regard for his country. There is seldom an instance of a man guilty of betraying his country, who had not before lost the feeling of moral obligations in his private connections” – Samuel Adams. Practicing altruism, as opposed to egotism, leads towards higher ground.

“There is no man more dangerous, in a position of power, than he who refuses to accept as a working truth the idea that all a man does should make for rightness and soundess, that even the fixing of a tariff rate must be moral.” – Ida Tarbell. Good moral character refers to small acts and minor decisions as well as the large ones.

The difference between pretending or saying and actually doing: “Hypocrisy is not a way of getting back to the moral high ground. Pretending you’re moral, saying you’re moral is not the same as acting morally.” – Alan Dershowitz. We have to do more that “talk the talk”; we have to “walk the walk” in order for good moral character to flourish.